NeedzWD40

The range has been reduced and the AI will use them at about 35nmi from a target now; this is apparently a weapon-level change because the old Flanker F-14 does the same with the exact same weapon. Curiously enough, the R-33 launched by the MiG-31 is being treated similar. I still see no (or little) use of the modern AIM-54 types, so the old AIM-54C is still what I'd suggest putting on AI F-14s.

If looking for official reading: FM 1-112 Attack Helicopter Operations FM 3-04.126 Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations FM 3-04 Army Aviation There are more like these; search for "army attack helicopter operations" and you can get a whole lot of info out there. If looking for non-gov't publications: Apache AH-64 Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) 1976–2005 (Osprey Publishing) AH-64 Apache Units of Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom (Osprey Publishing)

Until the AIM-54s are fixed for the AI, you can reuse the old AIM-54Cs; you can customize from a loadout template in this mission: These work just fine for the AI and they will use them from a proper distance far out. The only issue is the glove stations hover as the module doesn't recognize the old missiles for the glove pylons.

Yeah there was, early on in the video:

Just a note that the Forrestal still takes damage on aircraft trapping/landing as of the current update.

I gotcha: AI can use all that gear just fine, kinda cool. So on that subject, even if we couldn't have a flyable F-14D, it'd be nice to have one as an AI asset.

It is possible, as M-SHORAD utilizes AGM-114L as part of an ADA system. Here's a test video from a few years ago: Now whether or not said missiles were tuned specifically for ADA is another question. Against other helicopters and low/slow flying aircraft, I'm sure they're plenty capable. SAL missiles have been used a few times for similar purposes.

I can relate an almost identical experience with Petrovich: sometimes he is a sharpshooter, getting nothing but hits, then other times he just can't seem to hit at all, period. When he does miss, it is always over the target: I've yet to see him hit to the side or in front of a target. Doesn't matter how steady or unsteady I am with the aircraft; sometimes I've done hover fire and long range, thinking "no way will this hit" and he scores a perfect hit, then other times we're steady as a rock, perfectly centered on a stationary target in forward and the missile sails right overhead -- and then the subsequent 3 runs he repeats the exact same pattern of misses. I would think that if he were really missing, I'd see more than just misses overhead and instead would see missiles drift to the sides and in front.

AI fixed wing are very skittish about utilizing BVR weapons on helicopters in general. It happens on rare occasions (and seemingly always to me, never AI), but I've never been able to get them to consistently utilize such weapons. It's been a while since I tested them, so I might need to give jets exclusive SARH/ARH missiles and see if they use them as a last resort. As a player, I usually end up using the gun just because the AI has a lot of dark arts and arcane magic in their chaff and flares. I find that for the fixed wing party, it hearkens back to WWII BnZ tactics -- it is essentially how a energy fighter will deal with a turn fighter. Missiles change the dynamic of course, but by and large if the fixed wing pilot sticks to slashing tactics, they can deny the helicopter a lot of advantages. Naturally, every situation is different, so I liken the whole dynamic to a knife fight in a phone booth. If both parties come with HOBS missiles, then WVR between the two just got a whole lot dangerous for everyone. The only time I can think of would've been the '94 blue-on-blue UH-60s shot down by F-15s during Provide Comfort. Given that fixed wing elements can have huge impacts on rotary wing elements in the conduct of their missions, it makes sense to not take unnecessary risks on the rotary wing side. Operating within the friendly ADA umbrella or in concert with friendly CAP is simply the better move to take -- and if all possible, both!

They simulated a few engagements with MANPADS simulators, but I've only found anecdotal information on such. Actual J-CATCH documentation is either restricted or not digitized, so the actual methodology and metrics is not readily available. Thus far, this PDF is the most in-depth I've been able to find on the project, and the picture it paints doesn't exclusively indicate it was simply jets vs helicopters: https://web.archive.org/web/20111007115109/http://www.thepavecave.com/documents/20thSOS/1979.pdf AWG-9 doesn't have much problem maintaining track of helicopters in my experience, just that more often than not the AIM-7s don't track because DCS reasons. AIM-54s are fairly consistent (if a bit wasteful), however. In a few of my scenarios, I have AI helicopters flying around with AAMs and it gets entertaining (and sad) to see real players try to fight these aircraft. Recently, I got to watch 3 player F-14s get shot down by a single Mi-24V. Wouldn't have mattered if they could've locked onto the radar signature or not since they were playing to the Hind's advantages. The only thing is that this is kind of a wash for player Mi-24Ps as they don't have flare spam and player flares are totally dependent on RNG, compared to the AI's mythical flare performance. Even if I immediately start flinging out flares as soon as I see a fighter, its a 50/50 chance as to whether or not they'll work against an IR missile. This does result in a more aggressive response on my part because I either end up getting an AT-9 ready and hoping Petrovich will see them or start spraying with the cannon, because it's only a matter of time before they wear me down. Everything else has flare spam so with them it's pretty much just throw out bucketloads of flares and there's nothing to worry about, unless they go gunzo. I'd argue it's more about situational context rather than an "every time" sort of deal. Most DCS scenarios don't do a very good job at simulating real world situations, ROE, etc. and with good reason, as a lot of that can get boring pretty quick. A helicopter with a turreted gun and AAMs in the mountains has a lot more options than a helicopter with a fixed gun in the flat desert. I've had my share of kills in a variety of jets against helicopters by simply switching to the A/G gun mode and putting a bunch of rounds in the vicinity, likewise a variety of A/G ordnance. I've also had cases where I come up from behind and fire an IR missile with the helicopter unawares, ditto A/A gun. Conversely, I've also ran anti-aircraft sorties in a Gazelle Mistral by hiding behind buildings and popping up to fire into their exposed rears, or more recently AT-9/AT-16 to the face of oncoming fighters. In virtually all cases, the other side was simply not paying attention to what they were doing nor did they have the skills or knowhow; if that were to change, then all the outcomes are quite different. As a note on J-CATCH: bear in mind it was conducted in the late 70s. A lot has changed since then, in terms of technology, tactics, procedures, etc. Using it as an end-all, be-all example is a bit flawed if looking through the lens of the modern era. It'd be making the same mistake made in the 80s of assuming that the ZSU-23-4 is the only real threat to helicopters, ignoring proliferation of all-aspect IR missiles, advanced SHORAD like SA-19, SA-15, and so on. Aside: the now-archived ACIG.org had some good records of shootdowns in the Iran-Iraq war, where we can analyze some metrics of helicopters on a modern-ish battlefield. The Iranians have several presumably confirmed kills vs jets, with the Iraqis having a few claims with their Mi-25s. This of course must be taken with a healthy dose of salt, but it is a starting point at a minimum: https://web.archive.org/web/20071228202316/http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_214.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20080111222740/http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml https://web.archive.org/web/20060829121136/http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_404.shtml

It isn't that they can't, just that it generally isn't advisable to do so unless in exceptional circumstances. The reason is more due to the introduction of the Mk66 Hydra rocket motor, which has a hell of a lot more impulse and resulting exhaust gasses compared to the old Mk40 (note the AH-64 has software to shoot both motor types... or did). This is also why you see some AH-1Fs with the shroud on the underside if the engine intakes: they had similar engine surging problems when the Mk66 motors were introduced. So as long as your firing schedule isn't too rapid or you're in forward flight (similar to the Russian S-8 series of rockets), there's really no issues.

"What's that, GBU-10? Kill them all? HAHA! Good idea!" Objectively speaking, a modern fixed wing jet has a lot more options to deal with a helicopter than the other way around. This doesn't make the helicopter a sitting duck, of course, but taking an attack helicopter up against a jet fighter are some long odds. The AI is, shall we say, not very bright when it comes to flying and fighting in helicopters vs jets or vice versa, the same for most players. Having been on both sides of the equation within DCS, it's more difficult for the rotary wing side to come out on top.

The BFT does fit within the era of the module, though, as there was a rush to equip Army Aviation with it from 2002-onwards. 2005 (hard to see in this picture): https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/171056/00-5178-usa-army-boeing-ah-64-apache/ 2006: 2007: 2008: https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Boeing-AH-64D-Apache-Longbow/1449568/L 2009: https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Boeing-AH-64D-Apache-Longbow/1657521/L Not a make or break feature if it's not part of the package, but it's a capability that's been there for a while.

Yes, Blue Force Tracker.

This is only for the SAL missiles. RF missiles are autonomous once launched and require no further input once launched. LOBL vs LOAL modes for RF missiles are primarily dependent on target distance, motion, and acquisition source. Dumbed down, it can basically be said stationary = LOAL or LOBL; moving = LOBL only. Yes, this is the plan. The old JCM program was originally going to be a tri-seeker, but this was complex and expensive. JAGM is MMW and SAL, while the JCM had MMW, SAL, and IIR.

I decided to make it easy for everyone and made a simple mission template: F14 AI Missiles Example.miz Load up the mission in the editor, select one of the F-14 groups, then look at the payload section, then right click on "Mission Payload" and copy it. Name it whatever you desire and you now have the old AIM-54 loadout for the new F-14s. You'll have to do the same for both F-14A and F-14B, and if you need the weapons for a different tasking you'll have to change the tasking and repeat the mission payload copy. I have included three configurations for the payloads on all AI planes, including the hovering AIM-54s on the glove stations (the AI doesn't care). You'll find the AI will engage targets from about 70-80nmi depending on conditions.

Caveat: there is an IR pointer upgrade but I don't know if they ever implemented it or not. However, even if so, it would likely fall out of the timeframe for the DCS AH-64D. I can't speak for Army AH-64D's, but USMC AH-1Ws got an IR laser attached to the M197s after ODS.

Originally, I thought this was particular to the new LANTIRN functionality for Jester, but it seems to be a separate issue. If you set Jester to inactive at any point in time, he can no longer be set active again. The menu remains stuck on "Jester Inactive" with only the "Set Active" option, with this doing nothing.

It's kind of a pain to set up, but I give them the old baseline ED AIM-54Cs, which the AI will use from proper ranges. Curiously enough, the player can also use these missiles. Do note that they won't look right on the glove stations as they hover out there, but are fine on the centerline. The code for the old missiles is "{7575BA0B-7294-4844-857B-031A144B2595}" and you can either add them to your MissionEditor\UnitPayloads\F-14A-135-GR.lua (or F-14B.lua) files or you can open up a mission in a text editor and modify the payloads directly, then open the ME up and save the mission payload as a custom payload.

Landing on the Forrestal causes damage: a minute amount on a successful trap, a larger amount on a bolter/touch and go. As tracks are totally unreliable, this may take several viewings to see the effect in action. The test mission has a readout that gives Forrestal health at the start (7300 hit points) and at landing/bolter (depending on the track status on viewing, it can be 7266 or lower on a touchdown). F-14A CV-59 Damaged.trk

Unfortunately, I have a bug to report: if you go to A/G mode, then tell Jester to go to TCS, then when you bring up the Jester menu again the TCS/LANTIRN option is removed. It comes back if you go back to the main Jester menu, then back to A/G weapons, but if you go to Crew Contract and set Jester inactive, you can never activate him again. He remains stuck and frozen. I have two tracks demonstrating this behavior. F-14A Jester LANTIRN Failure.trkF-14B Jester LANTIRN Failure.trk

Had a problem with Jester LANTIRN: Cold start on the Forrestal, reloaded from CAP to A/G with GBU-16, Mk20, two Mk82AIR, AIM-54, and LANTIRN pod. Powered up, took off, went to AG mode, waited for LANTIRN to power up, but never got any messages. Selected TCS from A/G Jester menu, then lost all LANTIRN options from there. Tried changing modes back and forth, nothing brought back LANTIRN options. Set Jester to inactive, then couldn't get him to activate again; completely stuck. Had to go to the back seat and jump between seats for testing. Will try to replicate for a track in a controlled scenario.

This has more to do with players not understanding the limits of the aircraft's systems rather than Jester's relative inability. If he can't do something in particular, then chances are the systems are the limiting factor, not him. Once you adjust to the limitations of the aircraft and understand how Jester interacts with them, he works about as well as an average human RIO. For sure, he's no replacement for a skilled RIO, but even that takes some time and effort to learn. The problem isn't really so much control, as you can have all the control you want; the problem is the overall complexity. It has been quite some time since the last serious AH-64 sim and the technical leaps and bounds since then means that we can get that much closer to reality -- and with that reality, the massive workload associated with it. Even the old games had a level of automation assigned to the aircraft, assumed as such for the second crewmember, to reduce the overall frustration. You're going to need an AI of some form to handle things because the helicopter isn't going to be able to hold a perfect hover for you while you're heads down in the front seat. It just becomes a question of how much automation should be present and what should be automated. All the same, I am all for being able to swap seats in multiplayer and hope that it will one day become a reality, but until that day, the current solutions are good enough. This coming from someone who has been spending a lot of time in the Hind and F-14 over the past couple months in multiplayer.

For early versions of the ALQ-144, this was true. They have upgraded it several times to handle more modern threats, particularly the 144A in Desert Storm which was rushed to the field to counter some of the more advanced IR missiles fielded there. This particular version was built to handle missiles like the SA-14 and SA-18. Whether or not it can handle even more modern threats like SA-24, SA-25, etc. is another question entirely, but the disco light has largely been supplanted by the CMWS and flares. The mounts remain and the ASE should still have an option for an IR jammer, but I'd guess that it's an extra bit of weight and complexity that isn't justified in most situations. Given that the system has a warm up period, cooling limitations, etc. I suspect that the flares have largely supplanted it. I haven't seen a disco light on US Army aircraft in 10+ years and it seems largely absent on foreign AH-64s as well, so I'd guess the system is largely deprecated.

You can actually sort of do this in single player, but multiplayer won't allow dynamically generated FARPs. Basic method is just to generate static units as required, then delete them when packing up/done. It's not a 100% solution at this point, so it'd still be nice to do per your request, especially when coupled with the need to have limited supplies available that aren't tied to the FARP object itself. In multiplayer, I experimented with just placing neutral invisible FARPs over the field and marking/revealing them as players locate them, allowing support/supply units to be ferried in.